LAW OF DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 3 December 1908)

§ LORD ATKINSON
explained that the Amendments standing in his name on the Paper were really Lord Halsbury's Amendments, which he had undertaken to move on his noble and learned friend's behalf. He first moved to omit from paragraph (c) of Clause 1 the words "lease, under-lease. or." The paragraph would then read— Any other person whatsoever not being a tenant of the premises or of any part thereof, and not having any beneficial interest, in any any tenancy of the premises or of any part, thereof.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
accepted the Amendment.

§ LORD ATKINSON
formally moved to omit from Clause 4 the provision that the Bill should not apply to goods of an under tenant (not being a lodger) who should have become a tenant of premises without the consent of the superior landlord contrary to any lease or agreement under which the immediate tenant held.

§ LORD ATKINSON
moved three Amendments to the proviso at the end of Clause 4, so as to make it read— Provided that it shall be competent for a stipendiary magistrate, or where there is no stipendiary magistrates for two justices, upon application by the superior landlord or any under tenant or other such person as aforesaid, upon hearing the parties, to determine whether any goods are in fact goods covered by subsection (2) of this section.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
, who had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out Clause 5, which ran— This Act shall not apply to any under tenant, not being a lodger, where the under tenancy has been created in breach of any covenant or agreement in writing between the landlord and his immediate tenant, or where the under tenancy has been created contrary to the wish of the landlord in that behalf, expressed in writing and delivered at the premises within a reasonable time after the circumstances have come, or with due diligence, would have come to his knowledge, said that words had just been deleted from Clause 4, on the Motion of Lord Atkinson, to the omission of which he (Lord Courtney) ought to have objected; but he was under the impression that what the noble and learned Lord was moving was merely a drafting Amendment. He certainly thought his attention might have been called to the effect of the Amendment. As the words in question had been omitted from Clause 4, he had no option but to allow Clause 5 to stand. He would not, therefore, move his Amendment.

§ LORD AVEBURY
said the words that have been struck out of Clause 4 were suggested by him in Committee, and were, he understood, assented to by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Lord Halsbury suggested other words which he thought would better carry out the object, and Clause 5 was the result. As Clause 5 was in. the Bill he (Lord 1596 Avebury) did not object to the words in Clause 4 being deleted, and now that those words had disappeared Clause 5 was necessary.

§ LORD ATKINSON
said his reason for moving the omission of the words in question from Clause 4 was that Clause 5 covered exactly the same point. He did not understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill preferred retaining the provision in Clause 4. Moreover, Lord Halsbury, for whom he was acting, attached the utmost importance to Clause 5, which contained more than was provided for by the words omitted from Clause 4.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
said it was precisely these additional words in Clause 5 to which he objected.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
having called attention to the fact that there was no Amendment before the House,

§ LORD ATKINSON
moved to amend Clause 6 so as to compel the under-tenant, if served with the required notice, to pay to the superior landlord not only the rent due but also the rent accruing.

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
accepted the Amendment.

§ LORD ATKINSON
said the Amendment standing in his name to Clause 8 was really, if their Lordships would forgive an Irishism, consequential upon an Amendment which had not yet been reached. Clause 10 provided that the Act should not apply to Scotland, and when that clause was reached he proposed to add words restricting the application of the Bill in Ireland to a rent issuing out of lands or tenements situate wholly within the boundaries of a municipality or of a township having town commissioners. The object was to remove agricultural tenancies from the operation of the Act. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill was prepared to accept those additional words 1597 when they came to Clause 10, and therefore he now moved to insert in Clause 8, which provided that the Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871, should be repealed as from the commencement of this Act, the words "wherever and so far as this Act applies."

§ LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH
accepted the Amendment.

§ LORD ATKINSON
then moved to add to Clause 10 the provision to which he had referred, the practical effect of which, he said, would be to confine the Act to urban areas.